additional sales tax reauthorization, that would be a huge public process. this is just for rtp purposes. they allow all counties to assume reauthorization. that would be skipping about five years' worth of revenue using the rtp. commissioner avalos: we are also joined by commissioner wiener. you have a question? >> thank you. i am not sitting as a member of the committee today. i am here primarily for the next item. i did want to comments on the issue that commissioner kim raised. i think it is important -- in terms of the $50 million, -- first of all, it is not just sales tax were the revenues. it is a broader category. in terms of the context, it was not too long ago when it was very unclear whether the

downtown extension would even make it. it was being poorly rated by the mtc, i think unfairly so. it was not getting the attention. there were some comments that were enacted about downtown san francisco. the entire product was in jeopardy, as we can see from the next item. we made huge strides appeared part of that extended from the dpx will require significant funding from san francisco. we have a lot of work to do. we cannot just rely on the federal government's. i know that there has been a fair amount of anxiety about the transbay joint powers authority about that $50 million, but i think we're in great shape and we will work out. we just need to understand we are working as a team on this. >> i do want to emphasize this

is historic. it is rare that you see things like this that really set the next generation of projects. the last time we have something this significant was when the executive director rejoin the authority in 2001. that was when we got central subway, doyle drive, electrification, and other things in the rtp. that allowed us to follow through with the prop k expenditure plan and other plans. all those plans are now moving forward. commissioner avalos: thank you. any other comments? lastly, we are working in such a constrained environment. it is incredible the kind of thinking and strategy we have to build to be able to fund our projects across the region and in san francisco. i want to give you credit for that. there is also a huge fundamental problem in this country, i will

say, about where we put our priorities. i wish we could rely on the federal government more than we are, but it has to be stated, there is a problem with priorities in this country in that we are not able to fund projects like this, and while there is a great boon that we can create for ourselves in terms of how we fund major projects, there are parts of san francisco that do not get service, just lousy service. that is my district. probably parts of district 10 as well. while we were able to fund these big projects, we have to figure out how to also make sure that we have a transit first policy extend to other parts outside the downtown core of san francisco to make people have a choice to get out of their cars and use the transit that everyone else seems to be using in the city. i will be saying that over and over again. >> in terms of their real money,

the next five years is what counts the most. the money that we have the ability to direct to other projects, primarily to the obag spending cycle, and working to get our share of the $5 million in cpi funds. 1 the work --commissioner avalos: the work you're doing is exemplary. we are all working in a constrained environment. i understand that. if there are no other comments from the committee, we can go to public comment. >> for those who were listening to this presentation, as was stated somewhere, this is like a conceptual plan. a conceptual plan is like a dream. you can wake up from your dreams and it could be your worst nightmare.

having said that, we need and para o data on the last 40 years linked to quality of life issues. while the san francisco county transportation authority can come here and give their conceptual plans, that is fine. in order for us to make progress, we need the empirical data. let me state to you that i'm the director of environmental justice advocacy, but i also represent the first people of this area, the alone me. for thousands of years, this land was pristine until some strangers came here and contaminated it. within this history, we have to find out some base lines. for example, you supervisors and this committee should ask the san francisco county transportation authority to give us some sort of a metric on the

carbon footprints. from my experience, year after year, more cars coming into the city, more particulates, more carbon dioxide, so on and so forth. we also need to do an eir on all of our landfills to see how much methane gas disputes into the air. 1 ton of methane gas it was 22 tons of carbon dioxide. the san francisco tradition authority should provide us with this information. finally, as you were alluding to, chair, it is good to visit some countries and see how much is spent on their infrastructure. china is one of them, but other countries, too. in san francisco, we have deferred maintenance on our

infrastructure and we do not have a vision, and therefore, we cannot leave a legacy as to our transportation system. it still follows the old grid from one end to the other, not providing good transportation to areas where mostly the poor people live. a very few poor people can come here to speak to this. so you representatives have to do what you are supposed to do, care for them. thank you. commissioner avalos: anyone else in the public that wants to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, the item is before us. commissioner kim: motion to move forward with recommendations. commissioner avalos: without objection. next item please.

>> item 6 authorizing the executive director to execute with conditions and memorandum of understanding with the california high speed rail authority, metropolitan transportation commission, and six other local and regional entities to establish a funding from work for a high-speed rail early investment strategy for a blended system in the peninsula corridor. this is an action item. >> good morning, chair avalos, members of the committee, the deputy director for capital problems with the committee. i will be presenting the item that begins on page 51 of your package. this past week, on april 12, the high speed rail authority approved the revised 2012 business plan. one of the major components of the revision to that would be a corporation of a concept dubbed blended operations in which a

high speed rail system would be coordinated, including coordination with new elements of construction, with the regional and commuter rail systems. in the particular case of the peninsula, that would be caltrain. this was a concept developed jointly by caltrain and the san francisco high speed rail working group over the past year, working in cooperation with high-speed rail authority as well as departments within the city. so we were delighted to see the high speed rail authority not only embraced the idea of blended operations, but have made a formal part of their business plan. as a result of the high speed rail authority embracing blended operations, the metropolitan transportation commission, working in cooperation with san francisco's mayor's office, the transportation authority, and six other regional transportation organizations,

have come together and developed a draft memorandum of understanding that does a number of things that advances both the interest of local transit as well as high speed rail. the memorandum of understanding establishes an interrelated program of projects for the peninsula. these would address both near term and longer term needs. specifically, the program and project includes electrification of caltrain, which is something that will provide full funding for the project. that includes electrified the system itself, implementation of an advanced communications system and positive train control, which improved safety and operational efficiency, as well as the procurement of electrified rolling stops.

in addition, as maria mentioned, the long-range elements " to the rhythm of understanding had addresses the balance of the project needed to complete the blended operation scenario on the peninsula appears that includes the implementation of the downtown extension project as well as other related system improvements that would include additional passing tracks and selected grade separations. the electrification of caltrain will benefit as a result of this memorandum of understanding through the california high speed rail authority, will benefit from $706 million in high-speed rail funds be made available through the project. in addition to that, federal funds included, generally formula funds as well as a total

of $180 million from the three member counties of the peninsula joint powers board. $60 million each from santa clara, san mateo, and san francisco. the downtown extension project will include $650 million. again, this is sort of a marker. once the project is adopted within the regional transportation plan, then the project opponents will come together with the federal transit administration to develop a final implementation plan and final funding plan. so with that, we are thinking recommendation for, with conditions, to authorize the executive director to execute the memorandum of understanding to implement the alamance of

the high speed rail as opposed to opposing documents. commissioner avalos: commissioner wiener? >> could you summarize those conditions that staff is speaking about? >> the primary condition in the document is contingent upon metropolitan tradition commission support of the downtown extension to transbay being a regional project, including not less than 60--- $650 million in new start funding. that is a primary condition. >> mr. chairman, as really to earlier, this is sort of an extraordinary thing that has happened. the entire high speed rail system in california -- there was some skepticism not too long ago about whether that would happen. since then, the governor and

high speed rail authority have turned things around. i confidence level in this system happening has just gone up significantly. what we did four months ago was, when things were looking shaky and of looked like high-speed rail would not come to the bay area -- they were talking about 2035 or a ridiculous year like that -- we met up with stakeholders to establish a consensus among the three counties that we are going to have high speed rail in the bay area from downtown san jose to the transbay terminal, period, and the story. then we will look up with the state system, and that will be terrific, but we're not going to wait until the end of the project for the bay area to have high-speed rail. since then, in collaboration with the counties and mtc -- it

has been an extraordinary collaboration to put this mou together. dpx makes clear transbay is the terminus of high-speed rail. i just want to acknowledge staff and my former aide, now with the mayor's office, who put in an enormous amount of work working with mtc and others to get this done. i hope the committee will support it. commissioner avalos: thank you, commissioner wiener. if there are no other comments, we can go on to public comments. >> i would like to advise this committee that the taxpayer plays an important role in the deliberations of high-speed rail. some of you are novices because

you did not participate in how things happened at the transbay. how many people were impacted? the long delays as to the number of platforms we would have to accommodate the high-speed rail. we have the democrats, who when they were in power, abused their power. now we have the republicans who are checkmating us just for the sake of it. then we have some politicians who just want to go, you know, listen to the political machine here in san francisco. now we, the constituents, want

to know that if we have this high speed rail from san francisco to san jose, what trains will they be? and the idea that if you have the audacity to say some regional people met and they're determined to have it, who gives them that authority? this type of pompous diatribe does not sit well with the constituents of san francisco. we have seen this through legislation and people going to the ethics commission because people are trying to hoodwink the spirit we are in favor of the high speed rail, but we are also in favor of complete transparency and accountability, which is lacking so far. again, our democrats, senator dianne feinstein, nancy pelosi

collette us down. now they are trying to come back on track. -- let us down. and they may, but again, the taxpayer pays for these projects. so far, the transbay, we do not see things happening the way we want to see that happening. we are not getting transparency and full accountability with the high-speed rail. you can call clinton. he will have a good discussion with the committee. he is one of those astute independent san franciscans who knows the law and speaks the truth. stop the hoodwinking. we have had a sufficient amount of it. commissioner avalos: any other members of the public and want to comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, this is an action item. commissioner kim: motion to

forward with recommendations. commissioner avalos: we can take that without objection. next item please. >> prop aa strategic plan development update. this is an information item. >> last month, we briefed this committee on the proposed approach and schedule for development for the prop aa strategic plan. this is an update on the plan highlighting the policies and preliminary draft prioritization criteria. the authority board approved the expenditure plan, established three categories, street repair and destruction, pedestrian safety and transportation reliability. every gun in principles like insuring distribution of projects, accountability and transparency, emphasizing complete streets, limiting prop aa funds to the design and

insuring timely product delivery by prioritizing the funds to projects in the initiative within 12 months of allocation. all of these categories and guiding principles are included in attachment one, which begins on page 74 of this agenda package. a couple of points on the schedule. this shows the most optimistic timeline for development of the strategic plan as we move forward. we plan on bringing the draft policies and poor relations to the cac in may, and then back to this committee as an action item in june for draft approval. the draft strategic plan policy can be found on page 77 of the package, attachment three. this is meant to provide guidance on managing the prop aa program to private sponsors and building up the project

principles and then drawing heavily from the prop k policies. there are some differences. prop aa has an emphasis on high impact projects. we're also taking into consideration the size of the revenue from prop aa to prop k, and number of programmatic categories. we broke them down into five categories. those are shown on the screen. within the attachment 3, we have italicized some of the policies that are new or significantly different than those included in the prop k strategic plan, such as an emphasis on timeliness of funds, emphasis on shorter projects with immediate tangible benefits, and continuing with an emphasis on time release funds. if program brothers are not allocated, we may reprogram more immediately to other projects to get projects going and making sure we are continually using

prop k funds for immediate projects. the prop aa expenditure plan requires the strategic plan to include the five-year partition plan and project for the three programmatic categories. the draft strategic plan prioritization criteria are found on page 83 of your package, attachment for, and consists of three sections. higher level screening area, general prioritization, and the program and the categories. each 5-ypp will focus on near- term products to be focusing on readiness, compatibility with land uses, and the product funding plan. it will also include a prayer position mechanism to rein in profits from its category. these mechanisms will determine what types of products are given the highest party for funding in the first five years of prop aa. criteria resembles prop k to a

degree, but there are several differences, such as the prop aa 5-ypp will be stand alone. that said, and the prop aa the ignition criteria is similar and that brought responses and the public will have a clear understanding of our products are part cars for funding within each category, for running the five-year programs or projects, including scope, schedule, and funding. second, it will provide a pipeline of grant ready products that can be advanced as soon as funding is available, including prop aa and other fund leveraged by prop aa. we released a call for projects several weeks ago on march 30. those responses are due to the authority april 30. this will help with the development of the strategic plan and will have a particular focus on identifying products can be funded with in the first five years of prop aa.

we will issue the second call for projects for fiscal year 12, 13 in june 2012. those applications will be due in august. this will serve as an additional opportunity for project sponsors to submit projects for consideration for fiscal year 12, 13, and future year allocations. we anticipate the first allocation to occur in fall 2012, and to submit approximately $26 million to program over this first five- year period. as for the draft of policies amortization criteria, we continue to take input from the public. as well as you off from the overall strategic plan. welcome the opportunity to meet with your offices on this topic. commissioner avalos: thank you. who is responding to the call of the project? emergency departments? how does that work? >> in terms of the types -- who

is sponsoring the types of projects we expect to receive? >any public agency is eligible to serve as a project sponsored. just based on folks i have been talking to, i anticipate that we will receive applications from the traditional agencies we work with, but also other eligible public agencies such as city college and san francisco state. commissioner avalos: do we see a little bit of competition from within the departments themselves? >> noted in the call is that one of the things we will be looking at is how departments, if they have multiple applications, how departments or agencies internally prioritize their submission of projects. commissioner avalos: ok, so there is, like, some air traffic

controller helping on that process within the department? >> i do not know if i can answer about air traffic controllers, but the idea of competition is often we call for projects, and you guys get and we get the exact number of applications that meet the available funding. we will see first what is available probably more likely from the traditional sponsors, and if it suits the committee and the public and is not the spectrum of products we want to see, that is why we have called part ii. we have time a generate the types of projects and variety of projects that we want to fund. commissioner avalos: ok, thank you. let's open this up for public comment. >> i would like this committee to observe something. again and again when the presentations are made, they are made by most people that do not

live in san francisco. the other thing is we do not see a diversity. so i think it is time for us to use our universities and even our high school students as intern's to get them involved in this type of project. what i notice, especially in the last 15 years, is that there is a level of discussion which does not allow the constituents at ground zero to participate. i can give you a number and numerous projects where millions of dollars have been spent. the chair yourself will understand what i'm saying. at one time, the deliberations,

the balboa park but station was left out, and because you were part of some committee, you could intercede and agreed. what is happening here is again and again, we allowed entities that have people on their payroll to participate and submit their applications. we need to empower the citizens so that they can apply. it is very easy to say the public can apply. who in the public? what do they understand? where did they get the empirical data? who will explain to the land use for planning or give them access mta? who will give them access to other entities that can help in putting a plan so that they can improve their lives, be it

transportation, the it quality of life, the it access to affordable housing and so on and so forth. so, supervisors, as representatives, you have to think beyond the beyond. and i do not see that happening here. giving the san francisco county transportation authority to do as they want. you get some people coming here and giving the presentations, but they do not live in our city. they do not feel for our city. they cannot feel for our city of less they make an attempt -- unless they make an attempt to have meaningful out reach. -- outreach. i know the chair agrees with me, but we need to do something about it. commissioner avalos: thank you very much. any other members of the